- 11 - her employer had acquired new facilities distant from Stockton, petitioner agreed to a series of temporary assignments requiring her to travel substantial distances from Stockton. Her supervisor repeatedly promised her reassignment to a facility in the Stockton area. Petitioner had established her home near her place of employment and only accepted temporary assignments outside that area on the promise of reassignment within the Stockton area. She had no reason to disbelieve her supervisor during the year in issue. In a later year, when she did cease to believe the promises of her supervisor, she changed her place of employment. Under these circumstances, in our view throughout the year in issue petitioner properly regarded the Stockton vicinity as the metropolitan area where she “lives and normally works”. Therefore, even under respondent’s own revenue ruling, and the rule advocated by respondent in this case, petitioner correctly deducted transportation expenses incurred in going between Stockton and her temporary work sites at Novato, Napa, and Yuba City to the extent such expenses are substantiated. Respondent’s reliance on Aldea v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-136, is unwarranted since the circumstances there were entirely different from the present case. In Aldea, we stated: Petitioner has not established any business reason for living in Yuba City; her decision to live there was entirely personal. * * * The record does not indicate that petitioner ever worked in, had the prospect of work in, or had any other business tie to Yuba City. The union hall where petitioner received her job assignments was in Sacramento, which is south of Yuba City, and all of petitioner’s work sites were south of Sacramento.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011